What we're publishing first.
Policy notes and technical briefings, not company news — written for the people who actually run these programmes. Each one is sourced from public government data and independent reporting, cited throughout.
The Uttar Pradesh gap: what 15.3 crore ABHA accounts in one state reveals about the other twenty-seven
India's Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission crossed 90 crore ABHA health accounts in mid-2026 — up from 14.7 crore when the mission launched in 2021, a trajectory few digital identity systems anywhere have matched. But the number that matters more than the total is its distribution. Uttar Pradesh alone accounts for over 15.3 crore of them — more than double Rajasthan or Maharashtra's 7.1 crore each, and nearly triple Bihar's 6.3 crore.
That's not a story about Uttar Pradesh having more ambitious health policy than Bihar or Kerala. ABHA is a national mandate; every state is working from the same rules. What varies is facility-level integration, registration workflows at the point of care, and frontline capacity to actually process the sign-up — the layer a central mission can specify but can't build state by state. Bihar's own "Scan & Share" rollout for digital OPD registration shows the pattern in miniature: individual states adopting the same national tool through very different local implementations, with very different results.
For a Health Secretary, that gap is the real KPI. Not whether the mission is technically live in your state — it almost certainly is — but whether it's actually being used at the facility a citizen walks into. Closing that gap is an implementation problem: workflow design, frontline training, and integration debugging at the district level. It has very little to do with writing better policy, because the policy was never the bottleneck.
₹6.97 crore, one dead-patient roster, and the case for an audit trail that runs in real time
The Comptroller and Auditor General's audit of Ayushman Bharat–PM-JAY surfaced findings uncomfortable for a scheme built on the promise of cashless, verified care. Nearly 7.5 lakh beneficiaries were found registered against a single placeholder mobile number — 9999999999 — with a further 1.39 lakh registered against 8888888888, and 96,000 against 9000000000. These aren't obscure edge cases; they're the kind of pattern a basic validation rule would catch on day one.
More striking: ₹6.97 crore was paid out for the treatment of 3,446 patients the scheme's own database had already recorded as deceased — 3,903 claims processed for people the system itself said were no longer alive. The audit also found no mechanism preventing the same patient from being "admitted" to two hospitals during the same period, and documented beneficiaries paying out of pocket for care the scheme was explicitly designed to make free. States including Chhattisgarh, Haryana, Jharkhand, Kerala, and Madhya Pradesh reported the highest volumes of these irregularities.
None of this points to a scheme short on funding, intent, or scale — PM-JAY is one of the largest health assurance programmes in the world by beneficiaries covered. It points to a gap between the moment a claim is approved and the moment anyone can independently verify it happened as described. A yearly audit can only find these patterns after the money has already moved and the claim has already been paid. A programme built with a live accountability layer — validation, deduplication, and traceability designed in at Stage 01 of implementation, not appended at Stage 4 as a reporting feature — finds them before it does.
Two days to enter 200 patients: what a district health office needs from a system built without it
Ask an ASHA worker in Uttar Pradesh — one of more than 160,000 in that state alone, the largest frontline health worker cadre in the country — what digital health transformation looks like from the ground, and the answer isn't a dashboard. It's two jobs instead of one: the same immunisation or maternal health record written first into a paper register, because the register is still the official record, then again into an app that logs itself out every fifteen minutes on a security timer, on a workflow that reliably takes longer than that to complete.
Field research on frontline digital tools describes workers entering the same patient's data into as many as ten separate registers and apps — one ASHA reported taking almost two full days to enter details for 200 patients on a single TB-tracking application. Connectivity drops mid-entry, silently losing work already done. And critically, most of these systems were specified and built at the state or national level with no feedback loop showing the worker what any of the data she enters is actually used for — no signal that the extra hour a day produces anything beyond compliance.
This is the pattern behind most public health digitisation that stalls at the frontline, and it's a design failure, not an adoption failure. A system optimised for what a ministry needs to see on a dashboard, without being co-designed around what a health worker needs to do in a twelve-patient afternoon, will always look like a success in a monitoring report and a burden on the ground. Systems designed backward from the last mile — Stage 03 of implementation built around the frontline worker's actual day, not just Stage 01's policy intent — are the difference between a mission that reports adoption and one that has genuinely reduced anyone's workload.
Thirty-three years after the 74th Amendment, why a city health officer still runs on a state's IT budget
In 1992, India's 74th Constitutional Amendment gave urban local bodies — municipal corporations, municipalities, nagar panchayats — formal constitutional standing, transferring responsibility for urban planning, water, sanitation, and public health to the tier of government closest to the citizen. On paper, it was a genuine devolution of power. In practice, analysis of the Amendment's implementation over three decades describes a persistent pattern: accountability handed down to local bodies "not backed by either adequate finances or the capacity for planning and management" — and reform that has mainly benefited large municipal corporations while smaller urban local bodies remain functionally under-resourced.
The effect on public health technology specifically is that a city's health data infrastructure usually isn't decided by the people running the city's health department. It's inherited from whatever the state built, retrofitted onto whatever budget a municipal corporation could negotiate, and rarely designed around the reality that a city's health system spans municipal dispensaries, state-run PHCs, and private clinics that don't report to any of it consistently. A municipal health officer can be constitutionally responsible for an outbreak response with no system that shows them, in real time, what's happening across all three.
This isn't a call to give every municipality a state-scale system — most municipal budgets couldn't sustain one, and don't need to. It's a case for infrastructure explicitly designed for the tier that has the mandate but not the resourcing: lighter, interoperable by default with whatever the state already runs, and built to the budget a municipal corporation actually has rather than the one a state health department does.
These three briefs are a starting point, not an archive. Future notes will track state-by-state ABDM adoption as it shifts, examine specific scheme architectures as they're published, and follow up on the CAG's audit findings as PM-JAY's own integrity controls evolve. If there's a specific programme or policy question worth a brief, tell us.
Working on one of these problems right now?
If your state, ministry, or programme is living one of the gaps above, that's exactly the conversation we want to have.
Start a conversation